Talk:Fani Willis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date of Birth

Is there a reliable source for her date of birth? Or maybe a source for her age on a specific date? 76.14.122.5 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

From a quick Google search, NYT does give her year of birth as 1971. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the article using that reference. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone have a WSJ subscription?

I do. --Massintel (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC) I don't, but their profile on Willis could have information for us to add. Fani Willis: The No-Nonsense Georgia Prosecutor on a Collision Course With Donald Trump - WSJ – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: You don't need a subscription. Check it out here:

http://archive.today/2023.08.15-153903/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/fani-willis-the-no-nonsense-georgia-prosecutor-on-a-collision-course-with-donald-trump-600b88f8

archive.today and archive.org both offer backup copies of a lot of content. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you IP! I will read through it later when I have the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlanta

Fulton County does not include "Most of Atlanta"

The Atlanta region includes Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties, and the city of Atlanta.

https://atlantaregional.org/atlanta-region/about-the-atlanta-region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massintel (talk • contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The City of Atlanta is almost all in Fulton County, Georgia, with a portion in DeKalb County, Georgia. What is your point? You are confusing the metropolitan area with the city. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Most of Atlanta" is confusing. It's misleading. Do you really want to argue that it's not misleading? Do they mean the city, the Metro area, or what? I've lived in Atlanta and I've had friends in Atlanta in 5 counties. We used to argue about which county was better. DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett are all in Atlanta City. So Fulton is NOT "Most of Atlanta" however you look at it. Massintel (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not misleading. Most of Atlanta is in Fulton County. Anything outside of Fulton or DeKalb isn't Atlanta, it's a suburb, in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area, which isn't all Atlanta. No part of Gwinnett or Cobb are in Atlanta, that's just flat wrong. (and I've lived in Atlanta/Fulton County, Gwinnett and Cobb counties, not that that or your or your friends arguments matter). Your argument would have us state that New York includes parts of Connecticut and New Jersey. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Willis ADMITS to having affair with Wade while he was still married

Please add this to article, [1]https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4444973-trump-rails-against-fani-willis-after-she-admits-relationship-with-prosecutor/ 2603:8080:3E00:671:1D9B:A302:56D:E744 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing in that link refers to the affair happening when Wade was still married. Most of it is about Trump complaining about Willis. As for Willis and Wade's affair appearing in the article, it's there now. Paris1127 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

THIS article states it was an affair that happened before the divorce, but after he was hired as SP. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13039147/Fani-Willis-ADMITS-affair-prosecutor-Nathan-Wade-Embattled-DA-confirms-relationship-rejects-salacious-claims-improper-impact-Trump-case.html 2603:8080:3E00:671:1D9B:A302:56D:E744 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing in that article to that effect. Do you have a better source? Wikipedia does not consider The Daily Mail a reliable source (see WP:DAILYMAIL). Paris1127 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

the inclusion by KiharaNoukan

does not address when they began a relationship and suggests it may have been a condition of employment

KiharaNoukan soibangla (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Are we seeing the same edits? There's nothing about "condition of employment" and both my edits say appointed, ie. past tense. The "when" is listed as 2022, which was there prior to my edit.

First diff: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution.

Second diff, where I added another past participle: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she had appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution

Per cited CNN article: Willis appointed Wade special prosecutor in 2021. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I perceive insinuation by omission of context that does not belong in a BLP soibangla (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If someone was appointed already, that would insinuate that it would not be a "condition" of something that was beginning afterwards. Ex: "I began to pet my dog, who I had taken for a walk." I cannot condition the walk on my petting the dog, since I had already taken it for a walk.

I put another edit to show the appointment year and attribute Willis's statement of when relationship started. If this isn't enough, I'm not sure how much more it can be clear the temporal relationship can be between a relationship beginning in 2022 and an appointment in 2021.

If anything, the only omissions that were there were the ones that would otherwise insinuate what you claim. ie. the disputed start date of the relationship, which was represented in wikivoice. Per AJC: Her filing infers that Willis’ and Wade’s personal relationship began in 2019, two years before he was appointed special prosecutor. I attributed Willis's statement on start date to remedy this omission. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"I began to pet my dog" is quite a weird analogy that inclines me to stop reading right there. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

the inclusion by KiharaNoukan

This has already been fully addressed in the previous thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

does not address when they began a relationship and suggests it may have been a condition of employment KiharaNoukan soibangla (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Are we seeing the same edits? There's nothing about "condition of employment" and both my edits say appointed, ie. past tense. The "when" is listed as 2022, which was there prior to my edit. First diff: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution. Second diff, where I added another past participle: In 2022, Willis began dating Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor who she had appointed to lead the Georgia election interference prosecution Per cited CNN article: Willis appointed Wade special prosecutor in 2021. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I perceive insinuation by omission of context that does not belong in a BLP soibangla (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC) If someone was appointed already, that would insinuate that it would not be a "condition" of something that was beginning afterwards. Ex: "I began to pet my dog, who I had taken for a walk." I cannot condition the walk on my petting the dog, since I had already taken it for a walk. I put another edit to show the appointment year and attribute Willis's statement of when relationship started. If this isn't enough, I'm not sure how much more it can be clear the temporal relationship can be between a relationship beginning in 2022 and an appointment in 2021. If anything, the only omissions that were there were the ones that would otherwise insinuate what you claim. ie. the disputed start date of the relationship, which was represented in wikivoice. Per AJC: Her filing infers that Willis’ and Wade’s personal relationship began in 2019, two years before he was appointed special prosecutor. I attributed Willis's statement on start date to remedy this omission. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) "I began to pet my dog" is quite a weird analogy that inclines me to stop reading right there. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Amanda Timpson/Misuse Federal Funds/House Judiciary Subpoena

Creating this because discussion in the prior section is conflating this with the Nathan Wade/Fani Willis relationship issue. @Magnolia677 I reverted your recent edit because it linked the House GOP subpoena to the COI/relationship issue based on a Forbes article that is talking about a seperate subpoena for the COI/relationship issue. This is the Forbes article you are looking for.

The federal funds issue is: Willis employee Amanda Timpson reports potential misuse of federal grant funds in 2021 from colleague Michael Cuffee, saying Cuffee was proposing to spend it on Macbooks, travel, and "swag." The grant funds were intended for youth programs and gang-prevention measures. She ends up fired in 2022, sues the same year over whistleblower retaliation and racial bias. In 2023, House Judiciary investigates Willis for this and other issues, particularly whether the funding was used to prosecute Trump. In 2024, Audio of Timpson discussing misuse of funds with Willis comes out, and the House Judiciary Cmte subpoenas Willis. Willis says that this is interference from federal committees into a state case and that Timpson was fired for cause. Per AJC and above Forbes article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/video/leaked-audio-shows-fani-willis-was-warned-about-misuse-of-campaign-funds-whistleblower-fired-rising/9389287/

Audio recording of Amanda Timpson confronting Willis about potential misuse of funds from Nov 19, 2021. After this, Amanda was fired. This is recent subpoena is not simply "political grandstanding" as clearly biased people are claiming.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Careful there. WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. If you can't assume good faith, you shouldn't be here.

There is no indication that Willis has used federal funds, or that Jordan has any jurisdiction over a state court matter.[2] That would mean that he is grandstanding. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"That would mean that he is grandstanding" No it doesnt, youre just saying that because of your own personal bias against Jordan which is irrelevant.

We have audio of Amanda confronting Willis about this, shes fired 2 months later and then sues her for retaliation. This is then picked up by Jordan which is why Willis has recently been subpoenaed. Youre trying to imply this narrative that Jordan is just grandstanding, but there clearly is more to it than just that.

Again, no one is saying that we should say that she has done these things, but that she is being investigated and subpoenaed about ALLEGEDLY doing them, which would dont violate any BLP rule wikipedia has.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I just read the reliable source that you cited and I don't see where it says that Jim Jordan is grandstanding. Is your designation of grandstanding original research? As for jurisdiction, the Congress absolutely have it because as you say so yourself, the use of federal funds are in question. The House of Representative is the starting point for all government spending, so the House has oversite in this case, period. Mkstokes (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit. That Congress has no jurisdiction over the Fulton County D.A. is a simple fact. The allegations that federal funds were misused is at best unclear. According to AJC, A federal judge dismissed one Timpson lawsuit against Willis in November. But another lawsuit is pending in Fulton County Superior Court. I think Jordan is grandstanding, and that his subpoena lacks WP:WEIGHT. I'm not suggesting adding that to the article, that would be my OR. I'd need to see more on why the judge dismissed a suit in November and what happens to the pending one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay @Muboshgu, I see the problem and I've experienced this before. Even the most advanced of editors misread the WP:WEIGHT policy. As to Jim Jordan's subpoena of Fani Willis to "hand over records, including documents and any communication, related to receiving or using federal funding since Sept. 1, 2020" that is not a "viewpoint" as mentioned in WP:WEIGHT. Rather that is a statement of fact. There is no question that the subpoena exists AND that it is a legally binding subpoena that carries with it a potential charge of obstruction if there's no response. As I said before, there is no question that Congress has oversight over the use of federal funds. They are exercising that oversight by asking the recipient of those funds to provide documentation on how those funds were used. Jim Jordan is not asking for or implying "jurisdiction over a state court matter" as you suggest. That is a red herring. The U.S. Constitution gives the House what's called the "power of the purse." The "viewpoint" discussed in regard to potential misuse of federal grant funds is not a "minority viewpoint" by reliable resources. As other editors have clearly shown you, this viewpoint has been noted prominently by almost all reliable sources. In fact, I have yet to see you show that a single reliable source has not referenced to the potential misuse of the federal grant or that it's not at issue. The editors on this thread have cleared the following hurdle:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts

The golden rule is "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." (see WP:WEIGHT) I don't see how you've made your case that:

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In fact, you haven't made a case at all. Rather you've just stated that "We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit." The word "merit" doesn't even exist on the WP:WEIGHT policy page! Rather, it says "...these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective." When you get a chance, please provide references in the WP:WEIGHT policy that discuss the merits of a viewpoint to counter my argument. Mkstokes (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As to the dismissed case that you reference above, I see you expressed a need to know why the case was dismissed. Fani Willis says the case was dismissed because "The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims." (see AJC Feb 2, 2024) That is demonstrably false, and a D.A. should know better than to make a statement about judicial rulings that can easily be validated. The court did not rule on the merits of the claims. Rather, "Judge Ray ruled that this specific case should be litigated in state court as opposed to federal court." (see AJC Dec 1, 2023) Furthermore, the court said that the case against Willis was dismissed because Willis can't be sued in her individual capacity as a D.A. Timpson will be refiling the case in state court. Mkstokes (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. All this being said, theres no reason not to include a segment about this whole misuse of funds controversy and mention that she has been subpoenaed.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason to not include a "misuse of funds controversy" is that we do not know that funds were misused. What we know is that Timpson alleges that funds were misused. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god, I don’t know how many times I have repeated specifically to you that we should make sure to include that these are all allegations until proven otherwise. Every excuse you have made so far has been refuted and it’s apparent to me that you are not able to fairly moderate this page.

Again, include that a whistleblower has ALLEGED misuse of federal funds and that Fani is being subpoenaed by Congress and being sued by the whistleblower for retaliation. All of these are objects facts that meet the threshold of WEIGHT and do not violate any BLP rule. Once this has all been investigated and she has found to be either guilty or innocent, then we can update the page as such.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

seems news will be coming out tomorrow that Ms Willis has been dodging a subpoena and she was served by US Marshals today 2.9.2024. 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:ED3D:32ED:A60C:C87D (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus that there is a whistleblower. Willis says it's a disgruntled former employee fired with cause. We don't know who's right. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of allegations that are widely reported be RS and have weight. @Muboshgu, having the allegations proved in court is not the bar. This seems more the case of applying dual standards has on the political orientation of the BLP. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a process where we can request that someone else take over the arbitration powers of this page? Its been a few days since we have clearly reached consensus through the proper process of clearly understanding the various rules of wikipedia and no change has been made to the page. The discussion is completed and Muboshgu has just used circular logic without any follow up.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

There is still an open discussion at WP:BLPN#Fani Willis. You (and some others on this page) just don't like the consensus that has clearly formed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Its the exact opposite though. We have reached a consensus and you ignored it, just as you have ignored the previous post of yours I replied to where you once again used circular logic pointing out that these are allegations, which doesnt violate any BLP rule. Consensus is not based on popularity or "ranking" of any kind.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You say I ignore your consensus, I say you ignore WP:BLP considerations and so do the editors on BLPN. This is why this talk page has gotten circular. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Part of the MO around keeping inconvenient realities out of these pages is to tie them up in circularity… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I say you ignore consensus because the talk page you refenced doesn't even discuss the topic of the whole misuse of funds issue with the last post being from Feb 2. You fought tooth and nail on the issue of her relationship which you were ultimately wrong about and now you are doing the same thing with this issue. Again, we have reached a consensus on the issue here. It meets all the requirements of WEIGHT and does not violate any BLP restrictions, we just need to make sure to include that these are all allegations until proven otherwise.

The talk page isnt going circular, you are the only one here resorting to circular logic and you have ignore Mkstokes in depth post.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at BLP:Fani Willis is not related to the inclusion of the mid appropriation of funds matter… Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You want a discussion that focuses on the appropriation allegations? Start an WP:RFC. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll start the RFC actually. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the motion against Willis sustained, dismissed, moot, or pending?

One paragraph in the wp article Georgia election racketeering prosecution present version states:

In May 2023, Georgia Republicans enacted a law that created a commission empowered to discipline or remove state prosecutors who were alleged to have violated their duties. As he signed the bill creating the commission, Governor Kemp said it would curb "far-left prosecutors" who are "making our communities less safe". Days after the Willis indictments, state senator Chad Dixon announced he would file a complaint against Willis when the commission commenced in October, alleging she had weaponized the justice system against political opponents with an "unabashed goal to become some sort of leftist celebrity". Hours after the commission became effective on October 1, eight Republican Georgia senators filed a complaint seeking to have Willis sanctioned for her alleged "improperly cherry-picked cases to further her personal political agenda".

Now, I personnally think that this was more motivated by politics than juridics. (I cannot access the AJC; but the description in the AP source does not yield much legal support for charges at Willis for being too diligent. On the contrary, that source describes the alleged purpose of the new law and commission to reprimand or remove prosecuters who are deemed too lax, especially if they consistently dismiss certain kinds of charges, e. g., all charges concerning marihuana or abortions. The new law obligues the prosecuters to consider all cases where they believe that they could get a conviction in court; which rather would make Willis' charges against Trump et al. mandatory rather than worth reprimands.) However, I have no law education; so my guesses are not very relevant.

The relevance is that this is a rather public complaint filing against a presently rather public person. I think that this merits a mention in the biography article—whether or not the republicans got their motion sustained. If the filing was summarily dismissed, or the new commission has not yet even considered it, then this also could be mentioned. So could the fact that Willis was one of the strongest critics of (the suggestion for) this new law, according to the AP source. IMHO, on the other hand, the incidence could not be completely ignored, unless the law has been changed or found unconstitutional, or the filing retracted, or some similar circumstances have made the whole thing to a nothing. JoergenB (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Fani_Willis#Early_life

That long quote look unnecessary. Any objections to removing it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No, but maybe there's a piece or two of it we should keep incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"My name is actually Fani (fah-nee), Taifa is my middle name, and my last name is Willis. So, my father was a Black Panther," That is in the article already, the rest I'm fine with dropping. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the quote. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

High School

She graduated from Regina High School (Maryland), an all-girls Catholic High School that closed in 1989.

Posting here for the record because it was removed from the entry. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not important. Zaathras (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras this is a biography of a living person. Almost every single biography of a living person includes details of their education. There need be no judgement as to whether it's "important" or not. I'm glad it's been added back. 72.93.118.186 (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Maiden name

Her maiden name, Floyd, should be added to the first line of the article (i.e. "née Floyd"). Jgtrevor (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue, though I can't make the edit myself until the full protection is lifted. Paris1127 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done as I assume we will all view this as non-controversial. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 February 2024

A minor typographical correction: within the section “District attorney of Fulton County”, under the “2020 election influence investigation” headline, the word “democratic” on the second paragraph in the last sentence should be capitalized as it is referring to the Democratic Party, not the concept of democracy. L337p4wn^{Talk to me!} 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is this page even fully protected anyway? User73663828 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

To stop an edit war. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thats a good questions. Seems a bit overboard. DarrellWinkler (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's extended protected. I don't think that's too wild an idea given that editors must be logged in to edit and are required to have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days per the active arbitration remedies which apply to the article (see the notice at the top of this page). TarnishedPath^talk 02:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It was previously fully protected. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah k. I've only had it on my watchlist recently since I participated in the current RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 03:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

There is discussion concerning this article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TarnishedPath re-engaging in wikihounding despite multiple warnings. TarnishedPath^talk 23:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump To Attend Prosecutors Hearing On Their Misconduct

He attended another hearing in NYC Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This information SHOULD be in the article. The person that she is Prosecuting is going to attend her hearing on her misconduct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/fani-willis-hearing-trump-georgia-case/ 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:3D5A:544D:CBA6:2A04 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) I really hope that everyone above can see that Trump attending Thursday's hearing does not belong in this article as WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC) OMG, that's brilliant! The MSM will have to report on it, showing Trump observing his prosecutors getting grilled. Schadenfreude thicker than a bowl of Georgia grits. Let's wait until after this crowd-pleaser ends and just include what the plethora of reliable sources say. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Do you actually take editing here seriously, or is the Wikipedia just a point-scoring game to you? Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) do you consider that an effective rationale for inclusion? soibangla (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Trump supposedly planning to attend the hearing's relevance to the Fani Willis page is questionable. If (and it's a big if in my opinion) it were to belong on Wikipedia it would go on the page about the prosecution/trial. Side note, this section feels like a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Paris1127 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC) 1/3rd of this article is about Trump's supposed election interference, so it would seem that IT IS NEWS about his attending. Also, the Judge has indicated he will throw her off the case if it comes out that there IS "an actual conflict or appearance of one is grounds for disqualifying Willis from the case." [3]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/12/fani-willis-hearing-trump-georgia-case/ 2603:8080:3EF0:68F0:3D5A:544D:CBA6:2A04 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC) The article got to be as much about Trump as it did due to WP:RECENTISM and I think a lot of it can stand to be cut. It is news, and we are WP:NOTNEWS. If the judge throws her off the case, we would obviously include that, but Trump's attendance at the hearing has nothing to do with the judge's decision. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "if" is not "IS"[4] soibangla (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) She was relatively unknown on a national scale until she was on the Trump case which is a big deal and shot her into the national news consciousness, so I dont find that her article focuses too much on her relationship to that. And the whole point of NOTNEWS is that wikipedia isnt a place for breaking news to be reported first, or for editors to do their own research, but wikipedia should place where we include info about public officials and events after they have been reported in multiple and verifiable sources. I think the elephant in the room with all of this comes down to a political tug of war between editors with their own personal political views who seek to either unfairly smear or run damage control for political figures they dislike or like. I think its very important to adhere to the Neutral Point of View. That being said, I dont see why Trump attending this should be included in this article. Friedbyrd (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I do not really see a need to include unless the former President does something or the hearings/trial get their own page. At most it should just say 'former President Trump attended the hearing".3Kingdoms (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Wait and see. There are unverified tweets saying something else, eg: Trump will attend his hush money motions hearing in New York on Thursday, per Steve Sadow, Trump's lead Georgia lawyer. / Trump had reportedly instead been considering attending a GA hearing on Thurs in the push to disqualify Willis over her relationship with a top prosecutor. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) I've got to agree with the group. I don't know how Donald Trump's attendance at the evidentiary hearing is relevant to Fani Willis's bio. I presume if/when the trial starts he'll periodically attend that as well. I'm not sure it's important. Mkstokes (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Unless he changes his mind in the next few hours or his lawyer is lying, he is not.[5] KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the hearing and the disputed start of relationship.

@Zefr Leaving aside 1RR, how exactly do your claims of "recentism" and "news reporting" make any sense? On the hearing, that's the brunt of the actual issue regarding Willis/Wade. The court filings that are mentioned in that section are all focused around the eventual (and since occurred) court hearing that is set to make a decision on the issue. The significance of the controversy is over the alleged COI and improper relationship's impact on the case, which is dependent on the court hearing. The court hearing is easily the main event of significance in this issue. On the disputed start of the relationship, that already exists in sources cited in this article. It's recent/news as much as the start of Willis's relationship, which lest we forget, is currently within the article itself, containing only Willis/Wade's claims. See the currently cited AJC article reporting on Willis admitting the relationship start: In a reply filed Friday afternoon, Merchant said she needs to question Willis and Wade at the upcoming hearing on grounds they may not have been truthful about when the relationship began and whether they had lived together. Attaching that the relationship is disputed is simply following how RS report on the relationship start timing, which currently is in the article, but only with Willis's heavily disputed POV, a clear violation of NPOV. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought your second addition was better than your first. I'm not Zefr, but I imagine they are saying that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we need to consider the long-term ramifications rather than get bogged down in recentism. This hearing is not yet complete and we don't know what the judge will say about it. What of it will be relevant to her biography we cannot yet say. Much of this belongs on the article on the prosecution, not here. And I think that According to the filing, they began their relationship in 2022. adequately conveys that it's in dispute.

And yes, Zefr, please be aware that this article is under WP:1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I figured NOTNEWS is what they were citing, I'm asking for a justification/explanation of how this policy fit their edit, given that for the hearing, it is indicated by RS to be the most substantial and deciding event for this issue. Is this not heavily referenced by RS in this manner, or is its significance something that is overstated? It seems odd to leave this as an open-ended dispute over COI/improper allegations with no mention of the hearing that is set to actually enact legal remedies, if any.

And for the content on relationship start year, that is content that already exists within the article, and has existed for a while. Note that NOTNEWS states: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and says not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is not a different, new event. This is not introduction of a brand new item, this is something that has been painstakingly established to be relevant for inclusion. The article has had mention of Willis/Wade and their relationship start time before the recent string of edits, and the article continues to do so right now. The sources that discuss the relationship start, even dating back to when it was revealed (and are used in the article right now as citations for existing content), also present this as an item of dispute. However, the current presentation on this article only shows Willis/Wade's heavily disputed claims, a clear failure to match proportionality and balance as established in NPOV. I struggle to find a single RS that brushes off the dispute with a mere attribution without emphasizing or going more in-depth on the dispute. I'm asking how one can justify inclusion of only her POV on this heavily disputed issue that already exists in the article, utilizing these claims to policies. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan I would say that if her own version of events is included specifically in the article and there is no verbage such as "disputed" within it (or some information to show it's been disputed), then it is perfectly acceptable and makes sense to add another given POV on the same issue, especially because the issue has not yet been decided by the court. If the alleged relationship timing is mentioned, it cannot be one-sided unless it's an absolute fact. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 04:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree with @Muboshgu that it's uncertain how the information relates directly to her biography without a ruling from the court. The more "correct" answer may be to remove the information from her biography entirely until such time, and place what we have in a more relevant article in the meantime such as the article on the prosecution itself. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 13:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a consensus to add factual information sourced by the BBC Magnolia677, surely you know better than that, considering the lack of consensus in this thread in addition to the previous edit warring. WP:ONUS is on the inclusion of contested information, not exclusion, and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially since the witness testimony can't be verified at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I did a search for "Robin Yeartie" and found nothing, so went ahead and did my revert. I was shocked actually--shocked--that a well-sourced bit of text negative of a Democrat had somehow slipped into a Wikipedia article unchallenged, but the discussion was right here in plain sight. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You are shocked that we are applying caution as per WP:BLPGOSSIP? Your snark is unhelpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu WP:BLPGOSSIP does not apply to this issue. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It most certainly does. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 It is not possible that you Googled "Robin Yeartie" and did not find her testimony as it relates to this. Googling her name almost exclusively returns hundreds of instant results about her testimony from mostly verifiable sources. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no...I first did a search on this talk page and did not find "Robin Yeartie". On Google, my cup runneth over. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 My apologies, I didn't know you meant the TP. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu The position of Wade and Willis cannot be "verified" either but the accuracy or inaccuracy in reality of their own position on the timeline of their relationship does not warrant removing that information. The same should be true for the adverse, but sworn and heavily covered testimony of Yeartie. The edit did not offer one or the other as being accurate or give the appearance of such, as it is not known (and may never be known) which timeline is actually accurate. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 19:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One would assume that Fani Willis knows more about her relationship with Nathan Wade than Robin Yeartie does, though of course we acknowledge the possibility that Willis is lying. The judge's response will be telling. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I would like to stress that I can find very little argument against the inclusion of this information from another editor but yourself. Including -- in the BLP -- any information about the Willis-Wade relationship timing should allow the inclusion of the verifiable, sourced (but adverse to the LP) material disputed here because it directly relates to the topic of the subsection in the BLP, that is partly, the relationship. By your logic, we should then remove any information about the relationship entirely. Neither timelines have yet been found by a court to be factually correct and such logic would lead me to believe that many articles on Wikipedia about an ongoing legal event have this issue. It just doesn't make sense and is counter-productive.

Addition: @Zaathras is the editor who originally reverted my edit but I didn't see any discussion from them here about this issue. Zaathras, do you have any comments on this issue that other editors can consider in forming a consensus? Thanks! Scorch (talk | ctrb) 18:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras has disabled pings and so I will go to their talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a biography of Fani Willis, it is not a blow-by-blow article on a misconduct hearing. Take note of the last word in that sentence - a hearing, not a trial. All that should be included in this article for now is what the hearing is for, who filed it, and what the accusations are. Counter-this, counter-counter-that violates WP:UNDUE. IF this winds up finding WIllis at fault, and Ms. Yeartie's testimony was a factor in that finding, then it becomes WP:DUE. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras, with all due respect, you have seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:UNDUE policy. It exclusively discusses how to handle minority viewpoints in an article. Specifically:

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Honestly, I have no earthly idea why you think WP:UNDUE policies are about not having "blow-by-blow" coverage. You may think as a general matter that doing this is "undue" as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (i.e., unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate), but that is not what the Wikipedia policy is about. The policy also says:

"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Thus, the most important question is whether a viewpoint is highly prevalent in multiple reliable sources. In this case, it is. If you disagree about my interpretation of the cited policy, please respond with detailed references to the policy. I brought this up with @Muboshgu as well and he never responded. Maybe you will. Mkstokes (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've explained myself sufficiently and grow tired of your WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT. Your focus is on WP:RECENTISM above and beyond the long-term approach an encyclopedia is supposed to take. We don't know the short-term or long-term significance of Robin Yeartie's accusations at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu WP:BLUDGEONING is "...where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. I made a total of 15 posts on this talk page, 5 of which are administrative and 3 responding to views in the RfC. In contrast, you've made 69 posts! As for your WP:IDHT claim, that policy is in reference to "...editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive." Please point out the consensus of the community topic that I didn't hear that applies to? If you can make a cogent argument for either of these assertions, then I will leave this talk page permanently. Mkstokes (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I was probably wrong to cite those two pages. I do find going over the same points over and over again to be tiresome. Just because someone alleges they are a whistleblower does not mean that they are one and the damage to the BLP we are on would be significant enough to merit caution, period. Anything else I say is just rehashing that last sentence over and over again. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just a point of clarification: Robin Yeartie didn't accuse Fani Willis or Nathan Wade of any illegal activities. You may be thinking about Amanda Timpson, who is indeed a whistleblower because she filed a formal whistleblower complaint in her wrongful termination suit. Mkstokes (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:UNDUE is quite fine, despite your "concern," thanks. Witness testimony in an ethics hearing (since you seem to need this repeated, not a trial) does not belong in a BLP article. The end. Zaathras (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras you seem to have the basic facts of this case preposterously wrong. This is not an "ethics hearing" by any stretch of the imagination. This is a hearing in regards to a motion to dismiss the entire indictment and to prohibit Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, and potentially the entire Fulton Country District Attorney's office from prosecuting the RICO case against Donald Trump, et. al. due to a conflict of interest. If Judge Scott McAfee rules in favor of the defendants, this case disappears for the foreseeable future and their will be no trial. The gravity of this outcome is monumentally significant and the fact that you're unaware of that is shocking! Thus a hearing that may literally weigh on whether or not the lead candidate for President of the United States get convicted of several felonies is of great importance and everyone seems to know that except you. THE END. Mkstokes (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no such thing wrong, and I'm not sure why you think being untruthful is going to advance your argument. This is not part of the Trump trial, it is a hearing on a motion brought by Michael Roman's attorney, an ethics complaint. None of this minutiae belongs in this article. Next time, think about things before you actually say them. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras please note the document that I just posted in my reply to Paris1127. On page 1, where they list the incorporated pleadings it says "(3) President Trump's Motion to Dismiss on Due Process Grounds and Memorandum in Support filed on January 8, 2024." Yes, someone is having an ethics hearing in regards to Fani Willis, but it's not Judge Scott McAfee. Rather it is the Fulton County Board of Ethics that will have a special meeting on March 7th to address two ethics complaints against her. Since you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, I'll not engage you anymore as facts obviously confuse you. To suggest this is "not part of the Trump trial" when Trump's lawyer was both at the evidentiary hearing and asking questions of all the witness at that hearing displays an ignorance of this case that is mindboggling. No wonder you voted "No" in the RfC. I'm not being "untruthful." I'm merely supplying you with factual information that you seem to be missing. There is not a single person on this talk page that will support your assertion that last week's televised evidentiary hearing had anything to do with a filed ethics complaint.

For your reading pleasure: ABC News Judge to proceed with hearing to consider motion to disqualify Fani Willis from Trump Georgia election case

Mkstokes (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification: This isn't a motion to dismiss either. It's a motion to disqualify Willis's office, in which case the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia will find another office or appoint a special prosecutor to take over [6]. Though there is no timeline for them to act, should Fulton County be disqualified, disqualification doesn't just make the indictment go away. Paris1127 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paris1127 there are two motions filed on behalf of Michael A. Roman. One is a Motion to Dismiss, the other is a Motion to Disqualify (see Motions). You'll note that other defendants have attached themselves to this case. Regardless, they are requesting a dismissal of the grand jury indictment. When an indictment is dismissed, it goes away. A new indictment would be needed to go forward. The Motion to Disqualify would prohibit Fani Willis, Nathan Wade, and potentially the entire Fulton Country District Attorney's office from prosecuting the RICO case against Donald Trump, et. al. Unfortunately, the NBC News article that you've cited is incomplete. This has been my fundamental problem with Wikipedia disallowing court documents on WP:BLP. News sources never give the complete picture that court documents do because news articles can't be 122 page long, like the cited document. Mkstokes (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paris1127 To further and accurately clarify, the motion is actually a combined motion to disqualify and motion to dismiss the indictment. There are also multiple other motions to dismiss on the docket. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras Then, as I've said multiple times here, no information at all regarding the hearing belongs in the BLP if you believe this is correct. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did just confuse Amanda Timpson and Robin Yeartie. Yeartie's testimony is at this point "he said, she said" providing no evidence that I'm aware of, and we're waiting on the judge there. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Witness testimony is sworn and would be given similar weight to a sworn affidavit, which is the "filing" currently referenced in the BLP. Also, what the judge decides has no bearing on if the information is included in the BLP because it has not been offered as being factual, just that the adverse testimony occurred. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither should be given much, if any weight. There were a ton of sworn affidavits asserting voter fraud in the 2020 election pushed by the Trump campaign. This is why Wikipedia does not treat a court filing as a reliable source. If Yeartie lied on the stand, she would not be the first to do so. The judge's ruling about whether or not Willis has an impermissible conflict of interest is what we are waiting for. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu No one cited a court filing as a source. You're saying that Yeartie could be lying on the stand so you don't think the information about her testimony should be included, but you're not considering that the affidavit already referenced in the BLP could be asserting a lie or misrepresentation. The hearing and the issue it presents is already in the BLP and to not accurately portray it, if it remains in the BLP, is (in my view) highly improper. The reason that it's even in the BLP is because it's a major contested event in her professional career. The case itself is the largest case she's been involved in prosecuting. The various edits that are contested here did not give more weight to one or the other fact, and I think that's what you're failing to weigh. The edits simply stated that something occurred, not that either party was lying or telling the truth. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits simply stated that something occurred And for that, we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. And again I'm repeating myself. We don't document everything that happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Neither of these apply. The event itself is already mentioned in the article so your argument that NOTNEWS applies falls on deaf ears. Again, all of it is noteworthy to the BLP because it's a major event in her professional career. And RECENTISM doesn't apply because the event hasn't been given any undue weight in the context of the scope of the article. If there was a whole paragraph detailing Yeartie's testimony, then sure, I'd agree with you on that, but not for a sentence that built on a topic already included in the BLP. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

All of what happened in the hearing is not noteworthy, it would be NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. That the event happened is noteworthy but not all of what was said in it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu What is the perceived damage to the BLP? Nothing inaccurate has been asserted whatsoever, and what is contested here is widely covered in the media. There's very little damage to be had. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Alleging that Willis is lying in her BLP without any evidence is damage. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Yet no one alleged that she or anyone else is lying. It was simply stated that there was adverse, sworn testimony on the issue already described and present in the BLP. That is not damaging whatsoever. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 01:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If one person says one thing on the stand and another person says another thing, then someone is either mistaken or lying. The insinuation is unavoidable. And you don't need to ping me twice at once. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Okay, but that is exactly what has occurred, so I'm unsure of your thought process in saying this. You're attempting to cover up the fact that the entire point of the hearing itself is because of a contested fact. If the hearing is mentioned in the BLP, you cannot therefore ask that it be unduly described. It has to be described accurately. The pings are automatically inserted when using the "reply" feature in the WP mobile app. Scorch (talk | ctrb) 12:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

My thought process is a combination of NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, and BLP. And I will continue to circle it back to these concerns. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"NOTNEWS"/Conflict of Interest

As WP:NOTNEWS; "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

The things it list not to include are original or self reporting, routine updating of news topics, or fickle celebrity gossip. The issue concerning Fanis conflict of interest issue is none of these. Its cited sources, and its not routine news, but reporting concerning a public figure being investigated for alleged wrong doings, not just personal issues of hers. There is no reason not to include this information in the article.

As with any living public figure, the issues of this case should keep being reported as its updated while specifically mentioning that these are are alleged crimes or misconduct until proven otherwise.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's why it's covered at Georgia election racketeering prosecution. This article, though, is a BLP, and splitting off into a separate talk section isn't helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Still scratching my head how these multiple allegations are all over the press and the topic is totally absent on her bio. They no longer just relate to the Georgia racketeering case. This appears more widespread and worthy of inclusion in bio.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=65bcfc19e0892a00018488f2&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Fired whistleblower allegation now as well.

https://gazette.com/news/wex/fani-willis-fired-employee-who-raised-misuse-of-funds-concerns-report/article_510686be-faf4-5d4f-940a-7052b7e9bdc2.html Helpingtoclarify (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

She's now also been subpoenaed by a house judiciary committee over this.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/gop-committee-subpoena-fani-willis/index.html

The fact that this is still being censored from her page is a pathetic farce.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

More coverage / broad sourcing

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/02/fani-willis-stakes-too-high.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/fani-willis-not-recuse-affair-allegations-trump-election-case-georgia/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683

CNN calls her "embattled". The beeadth of allegations now go beyond the racketeering trial. I'm not sure how there isn't consensus here. I only seeoushback from @Muboshgu who is holding up edits, waiting for something... Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Literally nothing has changed and you (plural) need to understand the difference between news and encyclopedic content. Again, take it to WP:BLP/N or find some uninvolved admins to come here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Helpingtoclarify. The consensus seems to be to include something on this. DarrellWinkler (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Only among the people commenting. I wish some of the people liking my comments here would chime in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Needed here. This topic has advanced significantly with wide reporting of various investigations and allegations underway around the subject. Some inclusion is warranted. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, we have to add something now. Willis's response to the motion to DQ confirms there's a relationship (but it began after Wade's hiring). Paris1127 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. This is what I was waiting for. We need RS that cover it, which I assume will come shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Take your pick. Local:

The AJC: https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-fulton-special-prosecutor-admits-personal-relationship-with-da-in-trump-case/YOPP3SAOJVHUDESW3RR6UWTB2E/

WSB-TV (ABC): https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/fulton-da-dani-willis-admits-relationship-with-special-prosecutor-court-response/6EO63J5IEBGQ7CIICWSEF5MH3A/

WXIA-TV (NBC): https://www.11alive.com/article/news/special-reports/ga-trump-investigation/fani-willis-nathan-wade-admit-to-personal-relationship-say-shouldnt-be-dismissed-from-trump-case/85-43e25054-3f8f-4df7-a7e6-98f68b07d83b

WABE-TV (PBS): https://www.wabe.org/fulton-d-a-fani-willis-calls-misconduct-allegations-meritless/

National:

ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/da-fani-willis-rebuts-accusations-misconduct-georgia-trump/story?id=106904657

CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-filing-confirms-romantic-relationship-denies-conflict/

NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-acknowledges-personal-relationship-specia-rcna136871

Paris1127 (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Great. I have no further objection to stating that she and Wade are in a relationship. I will object if anyone says she has an impermissible conflict of interest as that isn't determined. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post and CBS News have now reported that Willis admitted to a relationship with Nathan Wade in court filings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/02/02/fani-willis-response-accusations/, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-filing-confirms-romantic-relationship-denies-conflict/ We have ample reliable sources on this. It's bizarre that a single admin is running WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the broad consensus of other editors to include relevant and germane biographical information from reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu has been the most particular about how this topic is treated. It's now clear it needs coverage. For efficiency it makes the most sense for them to uodate, to save them just reverting whatever another puts in. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added a neutrally written sentence to say that she is dating Nathan Wade. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No one cares that shes dating Nathan Wade in itself, the issue is that she potentially violated ethical and legal codes by doing so and this has resulted in a senate body being formed to investigate it, being subpoenaed by a house judiciary committee, and has had articles of impeachment introduced against her. This is way more than just gossip.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be bizarre, if that was what was happening. You can read the whole talk page and see what the issues I cited were. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I did read the whole talk page (because I came here to find neutral information about the conflict of interest allegations and was surprised to find none, so I looked into the talk page), and it seems clear that you are being obstreperous about adding well-sourced material that is well within the standards of BLP. I won't speculate on motivations but the behavior is egregious enough that it seemed worth weighing in, and it's actively making this page non-informative to readers seeking neutral, factual information about a person in the public eye. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you did not read the whole talk page, you do not have all the information to make a judgment on my behavior, let alone my motivations, which I have described at length. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I support Muboshgu's position to withhold further comment about the prosecution until the Superior Court judge for the case, Scott MacAfee, has the 15 February hearing, then later rules. Until the judicial ruling, the allegations of Willis' impropriety are WP:HEARSAY having no place in a BLP article. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or newspaper.

Muboshgu is an experienced admin with editing and oversight of hundreds of BLP articles. Trust the admin, the experience, and the BLP process. Zefr (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This isnt hearsay though, this is actual events that is being reported in multiple sources. Including this info would also not violate any BLP rule. No one is saying that she is guilty of anything, but she is being investigated and this is more than just "blog" posting. In either case, this info would be much more relevant than that. This looks like blatant "censor through wikilawyering" to me.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We know Willis fired a whistleblower for challenging her on her misappropriation of Federal Grant Funds [7]https://nypost.com/2024/01/31/news/trump-prosecutor-under-probe-for-misuse-of-taxpayer-funds-fired-worker-who-exposed-federal-grant-abuse-report/

We know she has been Subpoenaed by congress for refusing to supply unredacted records going back to 2020, [8]https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/02/politics/gop-committee-subpoena-fani-willis/index.html We know that there is audio recording of her being warned about misuse of Federal Grant money, [9]https://thehill.com/video/leaked-audio-shows-fani-willis-was-warned-about-misuse-of-campaign-funds-whistleblower-fired-rising/9389287/ 2603:8080:3E00:671:1D9B:A302:56D:E744 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There are other allegations against her being investigate by everyone from a US house committee to the GA legislature. This is not hearsay. After re-reading hearsay guidelines, the major concern would be using opinion pieces as sources. The body of sources citing multiple investigations underway is broad and not dominated by opinion pieces. I don't see how the argument @Zefr proposes makes any sense, especially with these multiple allegations (which all agree need to be described as "allegations"). Helpingtoclarify (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not hearsay that there are allegations, but the allegations at this point are hearsay. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu the allegations are not based on hearsay. As has already been pointed out, there are recordings and documents. You might call whistleblowers "hearsay" but since they are being investigated by credible parties, that is a stretch.

Part of the burden of requiring RS is to ensure allegations are credible enough that they are not based on hearsay. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your focused on the wrong thing. Allegations of wrongdoing are hearsay. Documents that prove they've gone on vacation together are at this point irrelevant to us. We'll see what the judge says. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I've read the whole talk page, and I've done my bit in responding to the various points you've made. In return I've gotten mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of what I said/edited, along with pivoting to new ad hoc justifications. In the earlier talk section, One of the first points you raised was my edit "dripping with bias". I took the time to respond point by point to every single word you alleged indicated bias. You then 180'ed around to "close paraphrasing" of the sources I cited and never bothered to defend your claims of bias. I then addressed the "close paraphrasing" of those singular words and the other point you brought up alleging that there were only "court filings". I supplied multiple RS conducting their own analyses of the issue, such as reviewing county records and a witness interview. You ignored that and then went on the BLPN page to again misrepresent my edit as only talking about court filings. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

All of this pain in the ass could have been avoided if editors had more patience and develop a better understanding of BLP. What's past is past. Moving forwards, I think we're good at this point with what's in the article, what I added and then you revised. Is there anything else that should be here that isn't? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No WE are not. There is so much factual information in the left wing "reliable sources" about her that is being refused to put in this article. Perhaps I should go to articles on conservatives that we KNOW are lies, like 3 years of Russia, Russia, Russia, that has been proved by special council to be false, but it was all over the article on Trump who is not even conservative but a moderate, but that is how far over the Overton Window has moved on this site.

The question is why does this site allow so much hijacking on it's articles? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again with this "hijacking" comment. You don't understand the most basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, like that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and BLP violations are a top example of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, your comments prove your bias, and since you will not allow any of her controversies to be added to the article, that would be what hijacking an article by those with enhanced editing and banning privileges would be, would it not? Again from YOUR comments, about Jim Jordan, and your stating you will not allow certain topics to be put into this article, there is a bias showing. PLEASE, AGAIN, bring in an unbiased arbitrator. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"Is there anything else that should be here that isnt?"

Yes, I would say that it should be mentioned that articles of impeachment have been introduced against her and that the house judiciary committee has subpoenaed her.

Friedbyrd (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added, under a "Controversies" heading. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION would violate WP:NPOV here based on the BLP violations that would fill it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Source for articles of impeachment? I'm aware of Jim Jordan's subpoena (rich, considering he defied a Jan 6 committee subpoena), but my understanding is he has no jurisdiction here so it's just a stunt. I.e., WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"(rich, considering he defied a Jan 6 committee subpoena)" AND THERE IT IS! Now we all know why this article is being hijacked! Is that bias that you are displaying in your qualifying statement on Jim Jordan? Perhaps you should pull yourself away from this article because you are displaying POV in what you are allowing to be placed in it.

You had offered to bring an arbitrator into this discussion, I think this in where that arbitrator should be introduced, but should be a fair arbitrator. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol. Again with your personal attacks. I should be striking that. Jordan's subpoena is a political stunt, period. It is not WP:DUE. You are not listening and I'm growing bored of this. This has been discussed at BLPN. Go to WP:DR if you want. Or WP:AN/I. I've been vindicated in approaching this issue with patience, I wish the rest of you can get up to speed on policy and not try to push hearsay and unconfirmed allegations in a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Your "understanding" of this or your personal feelings about Jim Jordan are irrelevant here, why would you bring either of those up?

Friedbyrd (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I am pointing out the hypocrisy in Jordan's actions regarding subpoenas and how little weight they can actually carry, outside of the headline of "Jordan issues subpoena". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, your opinion of Jordan doesnt really matter to the issue being discussed. In fact, thats the issue here.

Friedbyrd (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter, but the weight of a subpoena he issues is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Everything I have suggested as an edit has always fallen well within the bounds of BLP, see one of the actual textbook examples given in WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

WRT to the current edit, do the RS reporting on this frame this as just Fani Willis happening to be in a relationship, which just so happened to be revealed in some incidental court filing in February 2024? There should single line at least about the extensive RS reporting on A: The COI/improper relationship dispute that is at the heart of this whole issue and B: Willis's denial of them.

Suggested edit, which should be moved to prosecution section, replace in personal life with a single line to the effect of "Willis is in a relationship with Wade."

A February 2024 court filing for the Georgia election racketeering prosecution revealed that Willis was in a personal relationship with Nathan Wade – the lawyer whom Willis appointed in November 2021 to lead the prosecution – according to an affidavit by Wade. According to the filing, they began their relationship in 2022. The filing was made in response to an allegation of a conflict of interest and improper romantic relationship from a defendant in the racketeering case, which Willis has denied. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

When this was all based on Michael Roman's filing, it was mere unconfirmed allegation. Now that we have Willis' court filing, it's way easier to add something about this that's BLP compliant. This above proposed paragraph is fully compliant by my reading. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that Muboshgu said you were biased? I said that about them and they took my comment down as disparaging an editor. That is weird. So an administrator can call you what they refuse to be called. I can't remember what that is called but it is called something. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I said the edit they made was biased. You're accusing me of "hijacking" pages, which is a personal attack that you should strike. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, it is an observation. Why don't you read through all of your posts in taking down factual information about Ms Willis that have reliable sourced articles quoted. Then ask yourself if you would be as diligent of taking down the same sourcing on say, Trump? You refuse to allow controversial info that is sourced into this article, what would you call that? AND why are you the arbiter of all things biased, and not come here to see what consensus is? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. I object to violating WP:BLP. The same care is taken on Trump's article. The editors of WP:BLPN are the arbiters, not me, and they clearly agree with my position here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is my bringing up your biased actions a personal attack and your saying the same thing about another editor NOT a personal attack? Again, from your statement on Jordon, please bring an unbiased arbitrator into this and please step away from taking down edits. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

My bias is to WP:BLP. Personal attacks are removed as a matter of policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, if she investigates a conservative and the same reliable sources reports on that, those investigations can be added to the conservative's article, BUT, it there are reliable sources on investigations into her misdeeds, they cannot be added to her article? Is that what we have determined here? 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're trying to compare indictments under the RICO statute as well as other felonies relating to the alleged attempt to overturn a legal election to who paid for airfare and lodgings for a vacation between two consenting adults who are dating and working together, I think that illustrates the problem we're still having here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I am comparing, I am comparing her on tape being told that what she was doing with federal funds was misappropriation, and then firing that whistleblower, and NOW is subpoenaed to sit before congress to explain that misappropriation. Thanks for asking before you took my comment down. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, such allegations require WP:RS. That allegation comes from the Washington Free Beacon, which is not a RS. See WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has subpoenaed District Attorney Fani Willis of Fulton County, Georgia, demanding documents from her office following allegations that Willis fired a whistleblower who tried to stop a top campaign aide from misusing federal funds." from first paragraph of NBC News article, is NBC News now not a RS? [10]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh it is. It is verifiable that he subpoenad Willis, but is it WP:DUE in this WP:BLP given the context? That's the question. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

YES it is. Please bring in an Unbiased Arbitrator. 4th request. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If I bring in an arbitrator, I fear you'll claim I colluded with them when they tell you I'm right. You find one. WP:ANI is one place you could go. Or WP:DR, or Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active.

Hypothetically, if the subpoena by Jordan belongs in this article, then Willis' response to it does as well per WP:BALANCE. Willis said "These false allegations are included in baseless litigation filed by a holdover employee from the prior administration who was terminated for cause. The courts that have ruled found no merit in these claims. We expect the same result in any pending litigation." If she is correct, then this false allegation is a BLP violation and UNDUE. If the allegation is correct, then it would likely belong in her article. But, we won't know for sure one way or the other for a little while. And so, in situations like this, we defer to the cautious approach, which is excluding the content for the time being. Any arbiter of this situation will tell you that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That's related to a way earlier thing from 2021, where a whistleblower told Willis that another employee was planning to splurge funding on "macbooks and swag" and got fired shortly after. That's not related to the edits in dispute here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I read through that fairly quickly and conflated the two as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been an interesting conversation to watch. There seems to be a clear consensus but little action. The group keeps asking for a unbiased arbitrator, which of course you can do, but I think what's really needed here is an RfCand I'm surprised that an experienced editor and administrator like @Muboshgu has not suggested it. It would call out a potential consensus in the discussion. Of the signed in and unsigned users, @DarrellWinkler, @Dclemens1971, @Friedbyrd, @Helpingtoclarify, @KiharaNoukan, and an unknown user seem to be asking for significant changes (that's potentially 6). @Muboshgu, @Paris1127, and @Zefr seem to be in conflict with this (that's potentially 3). As for @Muboshgu's feedback, he's following the path set out by the Wikipedia community. Please remember, that despite it striving to be an online encyclopedia, there is good cause to understand why Wikipedia is not so great WP:NOTSOGREAT and editors need to lower their expectations about the need to place accurate, up-to-date, relevant, newsworthy, and verifiable information on Wikipedia pages, especially WP:BLP. This is not a personal attack. Rather it is a realization that Wikipedia's five pillars do not include presenting "the truth" or "the best view." So even if a court or legal document reaches a clear conclusion, it is only relevant if a reliable source says it's relevant. Thus, for example, if Congress issues a subpoena, it only matters if the subpoena was issued by a congressman that's a reliable source. A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena. This is not bias, it's good faith and a neutral point of view. 🤫

I cannot create the RfC but I'd like to suggest that someone else do it. Mkstokes (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean for Nathan Wade's COI/improper relationship allegation or for the House subpoena on misused federal funds? I think there is consensus already on including Willis/Wade, which I added into the article according to my above proposal. That issue is what this and prior sections are meant to be about.

If there is a dispute on inclusion of misused federal funds/Amanda Timpson's whistleblowing/firing, that belongs in another section, most if not all of the conversation here about that conflates it with Willis/Wade, which is completely unrelated. The whistleblowing and misuse of funds issue dates back to 2021, with Timpson's firing and lawsuit over firing in 2022. The House Judiciary investigation was started in 2023. Audio was released in 2024, prompting the latest House Subpoena. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena." Huh? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that consensus isn't determined by a tally of support vs. oppose votes. It's determined by the strength of argument, and many have commented at WP:BLPN#Fani Willis and not here on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu is right. Even if everyone on this thread says the additional content needs to be added, just because the 8 editors want to make it so, if a single person has a better argument, that should be considered the consensus and not the 8 over the 1. That is the way Wikipedia determines consensus and you need to understand that. It's how Wikipedia makes sure that all are involved, even if only one person determines what gets published. Mkstokes (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"A Jim Jordan subpoena does not carry the same weight of a Charles Schumer subpoena"

Lol how is this not political bias? Friedbyrd (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Political bias is just to be expected on Wikipedia these days. What we have is activists taking over the majority of admin and editor roles and steamrolling people attempting to make an article more neutral or add potentially damaging (factual) information to the narrative. They will attempt to fight it tooth and nail up until the point where they look like an absolute fool for continuing to deny it. 2605:A601:AC39:1200:19B6:CCFC:CBCF:6C02 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, they picked the wrong person to defend in this matter, (Redacted). No doubt some editors and administrators will try to keep this information out of her Wikipedia biography as long as possible citing WP:RECENTISM or various other policies. Though I will try to be optimistic that in good faith they won't. By the way, those some of the posts above this one were attempts at sarcasm/satire.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: BREAKING: Cellphone data raises questions about start of Willis-Wade relationship Mkstokes (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not "incontrovertible". Defense says cellphone data raises questions is the headline. Trump's lawyers relied on data collected from Wade's cellphone and cellphone tower transmissions to track his movements. They literally debunked cellphone tower data used for the allegations in 2000 Mules. Thank you for demonstrating why we need to keep this article locked down to protect the WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, no one has suggested a single edit to this article regarding the breaking news of cellphone data. Rather, one person has suggested if the reason an editor or administrator is here is to protect Fani Willis, they may have chosen a flawed target and one person references political bias. As I said previously, I'm more than happy that this is extensively covered by news media all over the world and am more than willing to wait for a month or two until Wikipedia catches up, if it ever does. If fact, I wouldn't mind too much if this is never covered as it will maintain the clear distinction of bias on Wikipedia. For instance, I'm pleased to see a 12 - 3 vote on adding content and nothing being done or someone suggesting an "overwhelming" consensus hasn't been reached. I'm please to see you rush in to defend Fani Willis. I'm pleased to see you reference "we" when referring to the need to "keep this article locked down." Mkstokes (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to suggest edits to the article. You and the IP are again off topic and attacking another editor, me in this case. Why you think I'm "defending" Willis is beyond me. I'm enforcing WP:BLP, as I do on every other BLP I come across. And on a second read, you saying that Willis and Wade lied in testimony is a violation that I will redact. And if you want to continue to complain about "bias on Wikipedia", start a blog.

And again, stop pinging me. I'm following this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine, redact what I said. That's fair. I'll modify my comments here for clarity. You have supplied contrary information from another Wikipedia page to suggest that the cellphone data garnered by the defense isn't "incontrovertible." I'll note that Wikipedia has a very clear policy against citing Wikipedia articles as a source as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but I'm sure you know that. That invalid citation may be helpful to someone fighting cellphone evidence but I doubt it. Given the source you cited, it seems possible that you have not read the filing provided by the defense or articles related to it, as it uses a vastly different method for analyzing cellphone data: "'CellHawk is considered by law enforcement to be the gold standard in cellphone records analytics,'" Mittelstadt said, noting it is used by law enforcement throughout the U.S. and Georgia." But I admit that I may be wrong and it's possible you have read the newest court filing or article related to that finding. Mkstokes (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly evoked supposed BLP violations, yet you yourself have failed to respond to the multiple times I and others have explained to you over and over again exactly why you are incorrect by quoting exactly from the BLP page. You've already revealed your hand when you said that information regarding the subpoena shouldnt be included because its "just Jim Jordan grandstanding" which is completely nonsensical original research on your part which is strictly against wikipedia editing guidelines. If you dont like people calling out your very obvious bias then you should at least try hiding it better in the future.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My comments about Jim Jordan were a poor attempt at sarcasm/satire and I don't have any problems with people calling me out. What do you want me to respond to regarding Wikipedia policy? 🤔 Mkstokes (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Muboshgu, not you.

Friedbyrd (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have explained myself sufficiently and if you're going with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that ain't my problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly just saying BLP over and over again, even after people respond to you directly by quoting exactly from that page and explaining why you are incorrect, is not at all sufficiently explaining yourself. Once more, I will quote it directly from the rule you keep citing (without further clarification of course).

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Its farcical for you to just accuse me of something that you are guilty of. You clearly are ignorant of the rules you keep invoking and and I have explained to you several times why you are wrong to which you just ignore my responses and move on and make the same misguided argument. Let me quote IDIDNTHEARTHAT to you too

"Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia."

Like I already said, you are letting your own personal political bias motivate you to violate NPV Through wikilawyering.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly not hearing when I say that content alleging that she engaged in misuse of funds or lied on the stand during a court hearing is a BLP violation and UNDUE content due to the at-this-time insignificance to her biography is tiring. I don't think it belongs. You do. You say that am "ignorant of the rules" and wikilawyering rather than just being civil and acknowledging that we disagree. Please stop talking to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Well thats the thing, its neither up to exclusively me or you, which is why we have this open discussion about all of this initially to reach a consensus. A consensus not based on which side has the most votes or most senior editors ect. but by understanding the rules through discussion and understanding them. We have clearly reached a consensus of yes, this should be included though.

And I am being civil, strongly arguing my point is the whole purpose of this discussion and you should be more familiar with the rules you keep citing, especially if someone keeps pointing out how you are wrong about them and you never engage in them.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You are continually leveling personal attacks against me, which is uncivil. Others have objected to these things being added as well. The RfC will play out for the alleged misuse of funds. At some point the judge will rule on whether or not Willis can continue to prosecute the case. Drop the stick. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, Im attacking your arguments which is the whole point of these discussions. And the consensus is very clearly in the favor of the side I am arguing too. Again, there is no Wikipedia rule saying that you have to wait until after a court case has concluded to include it in the article of the person. If you know of one, please let me know and quote it directly like I have been doing.

Friedbyrd (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

And I've responded to your arguments. You don't agree with my arguments. That's fine. BLPs do not include every tit-for-tat back-and-forth of a court case. That should be obvious as its UNDUE and violates the full intent of BLP policy. If you're looking for a WP:BLP subpage that says that exactly, then you're not engaging in good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You have already demonstrated that you dont understand these wikipedia rules and guidelines and you are now moving the goalpost. Obviously something like this would be included in an article in any other circumstances. This is blatant politically biased wikilawyering to essentially run cover for a political figure you support. Again, you already revealed your hand with your Jim Jordan comment earlier. This is the exact sort of thing Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger was lamenting.

Friedbyrd (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nathan Wade

Should a mention of Nathan Wade be added to this article? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html 76.190.213.189 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think not, because this is a WP:BLP, with significant protections for the subject of the article, and the allegations about Nathan Wade are so far just that, allegations. If it turns out to be valid, it's a B.F.D. If it's not, then it's just an attempted smear by one of the defendants. As the article says, Pallavi Bailey, a spokesperson for Willis, told CNN that the office will respond to the allegations "through appropriate court filings." – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I started a draft for Wade just in case this turns out to be a BFD: Draft:Nathan Wade (prosecutor). Thriley (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

How is a motion to disqualify the special prosecutor on the case not newsworthy? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It's "newsworthy", but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It is something that should be mentioned. Are you not trying to document all relevant information? 173.79.40.205 (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to roll this one out and update Fani Willis "personal life" with the reporting on the trips with Nathan wade? Reputable source here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fani-willis-nathan-wade-fulton-county-district-attorney-flights-documents/ Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

And it's not "a smear of defendant" it's an allegation of conflcit of interest of a prosecutor. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say "a smear of defendant", I said it could be "an attempted smear by one of the defendants". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This court case is the most high profile event Fani Willis has been involved in and the accusation related to her hire of Nathan Wade is now central to this case, having been reported widely in the media. As long as it is clear it is an allefation, this is relevant to BLP. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned in reliable sources like Washington Post, NYT, and ABC. Should be included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As the judge in the case recently set a hearing on the matter, Ive inlcuded it in the article. DarrellWinkler (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The alleged issues are only news until the judge hears the arguments and rules on whether the allegations have validity and pertinence to the case, WP:FUTURE. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The judge has now asked for Willis to respond. So we will wait for a story on her responding and then include it. This is a biased ignoring of news. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not "biased", it is protecting a WP:BLP from unproven claims. And we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I see I told you that already. That means that we don't rush to update based on every news report, we wait to determine the long-term significance. Which in this case, might be zero, if the judge rules it's not a problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

These allegations/unproven claims might have a better chance of staying up on the page about the trial, and then only as a reference to the motion (without going into too salacious detail and/or making clear that no proof was offered). As for Willis's page, until harder proof is offered, the most I'd feel comfortable with is saying that a defendant's lawyer made an [as of yet] unsupported allegation about one of her special investigators. With a citation of a reliable source.

But even that might be a stretch. It'll be too much for some, definitely won't be enough for others. Paris1127 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to the trial page. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

and I removed it because it has no real source soibangla (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Original source from Washington Post now included Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the article about the investigation, not the trial. And as for the trial page, the issue is moot as it's already there. Paris1127 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There are receipts... Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit based on the revelations of bank records backing the allegations up, I see you brought up "unproven claims" before the evidence of the credit card reports came out, but as the multitude of sources I cited show, RS are reporting this as substantiating trips between Willis and Wade. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu

Per your request to discuss here, and in response to your last point on your talk page.

Your entire edit is dripping with bias. They "pledged to pursue" an investigation of the allegations

I would suggest reading the cited sources before accusing of bias. This is exactly in line with how RS present this, unless "pledge" is now a loaded term somehow? I can replace it with "said he would" if that's really such a major issue.

Per cited CBS News article: A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation ... he would pursue a "full investigation"

Per cited ABC News source: would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."

Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.

This is even more bizarre. "Quash" a subpoena is a term used all the time. How is this biased? And again, she is accusing Wade's wife. That's how RS report it.

Per cited PBS Newshour article: Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.

Per cited Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're taking the words directly from sources, that's an issue of close paraphrasing too. As I have said here and on this talk page, as others have said as well, all that we have here are the unproven allegations in court filings and Willis hasn't responded to them yet. This is a WP:BLP in a sensitive area and we are waiting for her written response and the coming court hearing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that when she responds in the court filing then this discussion is able to included? Just trying to nail this jello down a bit. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that when she submits a filing, and when the judge rules on it, we'll have more information that we can use to decide whether or not to include it, and what specifically to say. If anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So it's gone from too biased to too closely related to the sources? The "close paraphrasing" essentially consists of individual words, ie. pursue, quash, and accuse, all in different sentences. If these three words are such major issues, then do make suggestions on how you would reword.

The characterization that this whole story is played out in "unproven" court filings is not true. Firstly, these are not just court filings. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. Furthermore, dumping everything into the categorization of "unproven filings" only reflects RS reporting pre-bank records release. Modern RS reporting characterizes this as evidence of non-work related trips with Wade and Willis. Furthermore, NYT reporting backs up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. Characterizing this as "unproven court filings" seems to evoke a standard that would require wiping the page of even mentioning the ongoing, as-of-yet unconvicted/unproven charges of election interference against Trump and his associates in GA. Modern RS reporting treats this as a serious development in Willis and her case and have developed extensive coverage into it and surrounding details. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Fani Willis has already "responded" to the allegations according to RS Newsweek in this story. It's time to get on with updating this in her bio. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK is not reliable

just sayin' is all soibangla (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

"case by case". In this case Newsweek has quote Willis and pointed out the did respond at church to the allegation. Seems quote clear she made the comment and it is indeed a response. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

not good enough for a BLP soibangla (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well theee are plenty of other sources out there too but we can wait to evaluate until she addresses in court (or events progress further).

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime/fulton-da-defends-special-prosecutor-during-church-speech/HLHFIKVP4FHIJH4ANZYV7HKHP4/

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/fulton-county-da-fani-willis-defends-special-prosecutor/story?id=106367044

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/fani-willis-trump-2020-election-case-prosecutor-nathan-wade/ Helpingtoclarify (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not merely a matter of "what sources say". This is a matter of the subject of a contentious BLP being accused of wrongdoing and our need to treat the article small "c" conservatively. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But clearly, there isn't a strict line enforced on no final court ruling = no mention allowed. Just take a look at the mention of Donald Trump and others being prosecuted in this very article prior to them being convicted. RS have gathered and reported multiple pieces of evidence about this. We even have mention of Willis targeting Burt Jones, who a judge has already ruled against Willis on due to a political COI. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly not. Trump has 91 indictments against him. Willis has none. A judge has yet to rule on any COI with Wade. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

(And others) How many indictments does Burt Jones have from Fani Willis? I brought up Jones as an obvious counterpoint to the arguments you raised here about waiting for a judge's ruling. The judge in this case ruled fully for Jones, blocking Willis from prosecuting him. Yet he is still due for mention here and in his own article, because we have extensive sourcing from RS about him and the alt electors plan. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The WP:NEWSWEEK article in part says She didn't explicitly talk about the allegations, or deny them. ... While Roman's case hasn't yet presented evidence to support the allegations, Willis called herself "flawed and imperfect" during an emotional speech, adding that she had faced death threats and experienced "loneliness." She didn't specifically address the allegations yet, and we haven't seen Roman's evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

So if RS are now reporting that evidence has been demonstrated, you would be in support of inclusion then? The Newsweek article is old reporting. Up to date RS reporting affirm that evidence is now publicly available (ex from CBS: Until Friday's filing, no evidence of the alleged relationship had been made public.), and have gone to gather their own as well, ie. with NYT interviewing others supporting Willis-Wade relationship. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You do know that an indictment is UNPROVEN ALEGATIONS until it IS proven in a court of law, right?

there are LOADS of people who are indicted that are proven not guilty. YET there it is all over this article about Trump and others. Why the double standard on putting things like she HAS BEEN SUMMOND TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS ON CHARGES OF MISUSE/MISAPPROPRIATION of FEDERAL GRANT MONEY? That is not UNPROVEN, it is FACT that she will appear. Will it be allowed to be put in her article when she takes the 5th over and over if that occurs? Seeing this is a "special" article and all. 2603:8080:3E00:671:F456:249:77FD:B9AB (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Being "SUMMOND" [sic] to appear before Congress is not mandatory, as Jim Jordan himself showed us a few years ago. So, no, there is really not much importance that needs to be placed on now-chair Jordan's political grandstanding. Zaathras (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

A WP about a public figure which neglects to include the most widespread current information impacting her notoriety behind the rubric that WP is not news but instead is an encyclopedia, is the type of rationalizing that is harming WP's public reputation for unbiased editing. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see a reason to not include. The issue has been mentioned on AP, ABC, CNN, WP, NYT, and Politico. A judge has set up a hearing for this. Simply says the allegations, that they have not been proven, her response, and judge decision.3Kingdoms (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've explained it. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and none of this is yet verified. If any of you want to, go start a discussion about this at WP:BLPN, where I expect other editors will confirm that we are not going to allude to Willis committing any wrongdoing without a judge saying so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The plan is to report on what reliable sources are saying. This happens a lot on Wikipedia. Fani is a public figure accused of impropriety. This is fair game. Your opposition to this matter-of-fact editing is awkward. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As advised, your best recourse is to take the issue to WP:BLPN. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As mention above CBS and NYT have done their own reporting/findings that give credibility to the claim. It feels like an unreasonably high bar has been set for including this information. For people opposed to including, what level of verifiably would like to see before inclusion? I can understand not wanting a massive section given the early stages of this development, but a blanket opposition to even mentioning does not seem to be warranted. 3Kingdoms (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm no longer opposed to ANY mention, but we can't just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services. Paris1127 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

This Muboshgu person is single-handedly preventing any changes to be made. This is absolutely ridiculous. When was a consensus made to remove all mention of Nathan Wade? Who decided it was Muboshgu's responsibility to determine if something is relevant or not? Exzachary (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You can address me directly. I'm not the only person here objecting to this content, just the loudest. There needs to be consensus to include Nathan Wade, per WP:ONUS. The BLPN thread has fizzled out. We need an uninvolved administrator. I can recommend some, or you can find your own if you don't trust who I'd reach out to. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

No one took you up on the offer to find an administrator, which seems like the correct course of action at this point. For now this topically is probably a better fit for the page about the trial (not the investigation), but this page could probably use at least a blurb about the motion to disqualify due to allegations of... well, that can be discussed. An allegation of ethical violations? Paris1127 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Why exactly would we need an administration to weigh in here when there is no dispute of this violating any sort of Wikipedia rule? As I already pointed out, she's been accused of allegedly committing an ethical/legal violation and this should be put in the page as such. There is no a state board established to investigate this and articles of impeachment have also been introduced against her based on this. Again, this seems like censoring our information through Wikilawyering.

Friedbyrd (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The open BLP/N thread is here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/georgia-senate-fani-willis-nathan-wade-misconduct-allegations-vote

The Georgia state senate has approved a special committee to investigate allegations. She is an elected public official who is now under investigation for alleged misconduct and this should be included in the article as so. This is just seeming like censoring negative press out of the article through wikilawyering

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP concerns are not "wikilawyering". WP:BLPCRIME: Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Including this information does not violate any BLPCRIME rules though. Claiming that we need to reach consensus as per WP:ONUS about a public official who is now under investigation for alleged wrong doing is wikilawyering. Theres no rule that says you can only include information about a public figure under investigation of a crime until a trail has concluded, you simply included things like "alleged" to indicate that this person is innocent until proven otherwise. No one is saying that she is convicted of anything, you are simply misunderstanding whats going on here.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no standard that says there needs to be a conviction in order for this to be included. Many examples of that, Including up to a former president who was treated that way in Wikipedia. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of wrongdoing do not need to be criminal accusations to be a BLP issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no BLP rule that is violated by including this information. She's now under a state legislature investigation and has had articles of impeachment introduced against her based on these allegations. There is no real excuse to censor this information from the article.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't the $650,000 total payment to Nathan Wade from Fani Willis be mentioned in this article? What about the trips Wade and Willis took together to the Bahamas, Aruba, Belize, and Napa Valley using this $650,000? It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to leave that information out of this article. 76.190.213.189 (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is Willis' bio, not Wade's.

Exzachary, Willis testified under oath as well that the witness is not accurate. This is a WP:BLPGOSSIP issue but I do not want to edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

6 charges against Trump in her case have been dropped

"Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in an order that six of the counts in the indictment must be quashed, including three against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. But the order leaves intact other charges, and the judge wrote that prosecutors could seek a new indictment on the charges he dismissed."

Source AP News

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: this is more material for the article about the prosecution, not the article about the DA. Paris1127 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Key sentence from AP: But the judge left in place other counts — including 10 facing Trump — and said prosecutors could seek a new indictment to try to reinstate the ones he dismissed. We'll see if they do refile or not. I agree this is relevant to the prosecution rather than the prosecutor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources have commented that these dropped charges are the direct result of Willis' incompetence, appointing her lover to oversee the case instead of an experienced prosecutor. This rarely happens with competent DA's...so yes, this should be in this article. I'll look for a source. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality applies to talk pages too. Your comment fails NPOV and you should strike it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Willis' incompetence has led to the current shitshow this case now finds itself in:

"There have been several screwups, frankly, by the DA throughout the history of this case. Going back to the investigative phase, the DA got herself disqualified from a small piece of the case because she created a political conflict of interest," Honig said, in reference to a separate examination the judge is conducting into an alleged relationship between Willis and a special prosecutor on the case. "We've seen Fani Willis make public statements in the church and elsewhere that have now been called into question that I think violate the ethics of prosecutorial rules, and now we've seen six of the charges thrown out of the case and unlike the conflict of interest issue, this does go to the charges against the defendant. This does go to the indictment itself."

DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of one CNN commentator is not really of interest to Willis' biographical article. As for the Sources have commented... assertion above, it is interesting that Magnolia did not present said sources for discussion. Why is that? Zaathras (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"Incompetence" ... "shitshow" ... again, more personal opinion from editors who seem to want to knock the subject of a BLP without regard for what sources actually say. The behavior here is egregious. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Kind of like when you called Jim Jordan's subpoena just him grandstanding? Speaking of that...

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't commit a BLP violation in saying that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and neither are other users when they say things like Fani Willis is incompetent.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is a great example of how discussions should not go. Calling someone "incompetent" in the absence of sources calling them "incompetent" is a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Kind of like you saying Jim Jordan was grandstanding without a source saying so. How are you not getting this lol? You have shown that you are completely ignorant to the facts of this case this whole time as well as ignorant of Wikipedia guidelines so please don't grandstand on either of those grounds. This hypocrisy of yours even when it's specifically pointed out to you going over your head is completely unproductive.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Y'know, this sort of namecalling might make you feel better for a moment, that's all internet interaction really is anymore, the zing! and the pow! of artfully-delivered one-liners. But here, all it really accomplishes is that you provide a evidence trail if your name ever comes up on the dispute or discipline noticeboard. (as we see happening at WP:ANI with a participant on this and related pages right now). Addressing the topic is always best for self-preservation. Zaathras (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I will call incorrect appeals to wikiguidlines when I see them, especially from users who are guilty of the very thing they are accusing others of. In fact he is STILL making false claims about this case even after it has been pointed out to him multiple times.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You're leaving out the discussion of Jordan going after Willis for something outside of his scope, i.e. not federal, which was the point. Now we're getting these nonsense comments about the DA's competence and an unspecified "shitshow" over some charges being dismissed. We're gonna be back on those drama boards soon I fear. Stay on topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, for the up-tenth time, Jim Jordan was going after her for alleged mishandling of federal funds which would indeed fall under the scope of the federal funding, hence the article I just posted about her facing a possible contempt for not complying with it. This is the ignorance I was talking about.

Friedbyrd (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't a running commentary of a blow by blow account of charges against Trump. Take it to another article. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

DQ Ruling

Judge McAfee released his ruling this morning: he did not disqualify Willis, but ordered her to choose between either having her and her office voluntarily step aside and handing the case over to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia for reassignment to another DA or to make Nathan Wade step down. He found no actual conflict of interest or forensic misconduct on the DA's part (though he did agree there is an appearance of impropriety it didn't rise to the level to force a DQ). In addition, he denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. So, that should probably go in the article. [11] [12] [13] [14] Paris1127 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Since your post, it has been added. Does anything need to be reworded? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostly looks good. I might suggest putting in the first part explicitly that he didn't disqualify her, followed by what he did order. Something like "while McAfee didn't disqualify Willis (and by extension the entire Fulton County DA's office)," followed by what's there now. Paris1127 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It has since been expanded. I don't know that we should include the judge saying that he might institute a gag order, rather than including it if he does, but I am not jumping in to edit this right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that if/until one is instituted maybe we don't need mention of it here. Paris1127 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The judge's comments regarding Fani's incompetence should be included:

• "Significant appearance of impropriety that infects the prosecution team".
• "a tremendous lack in judgment".
• "the unprofessional manner of the D.A.'s testimony". --Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the article. To wit: ... their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety" that impacted the structure of the prosecution. Willis committed a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and her "testimony during the evidentiary hearing" was "unprofessional"... Paris1127 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"2020 election influence investigation" section, Willis relationship

Currently the section under "2020 election influence investigation" heading about this material reads:
"In January 2024, a defendant in the racketeering case alleged that Willis and Nathan Wade—the lawyer whom Willis appointed in November 2021 to lead the prosecution—had had an improper romantic relationship. According to the filing, the relationship began before Wade's hiring and created a conflict of interest. Willis and Wade acknowledged that they had had a personal relationship, but denied any wrongdoing. Wade said that their relationship began in 2022, after his hiring. A hearing under Judge Scott McAfee was convened to decide whether to remove Willis from the racketeering case. In March 2024, McAfee ruled that either Willis (along with her office) or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety" that impacted the structure of the prosecution. Willis committed a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and her "testimony during the evidentiary hearing" was "unprofessional", but "simply making bad choices – even repeatedly" does not establish an actual conflict of interest under Georgia law, stated McAfee. McAfee found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Willis had benefited financially from the case or from her relationship with Wade. McAfee criticized Willis for publicly claiming that Wade was being targeted due to his race, stating that it was "legally improper". Wade subsequently resigned from his role as lead prosecutor."
This is too much text given the WP:WEIGHT. This is WP:UNDUE and needs to be trimmed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)